Perspectives of people living with HIV-1 on implementation of long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine in US healthcare settings: results from the CUSTOMIZE hybrid III implementation-effectiveness study.

INTRODUCTION: The CUSTOMIZE hybrid III implementation-effectiveness study evaluated implementation of once-monthly long-acting (LA) cabotegravir + rilpivirine in diverse US healthcare settings. Here, we report patient participant perspectives after 12 months in CUSTOMIZE. METHODS: CUSTOMIZE was a phase IIIb, 12-month study conducted from July 2019 to October 2020 at eight diverse US HIV clinics that enrolled virologically suppressed people living with HIV-1 (PLHIV) on a stable oral regimen to receive monthly cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA injections after a 1-month oral lead-in. Participants were administered quantitative surveys before injections at months 1 (baseline), 4 and 12. A randomly selected subset of participants was interviewed at baseline and month 12. Data collection at month 12 was completed by October 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic). RESULTS: At baseline, 109 and 34 participants completed surveys and interviews, respectively; 87% were male; 35% were Black or African American. All participants who remained in the study at month 12 (n = 102) maintained HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml; two participants withdrew due to injection-related reasons. Mean total scores measuring acceptability and appropriateness of cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA were high at baseline (4.5-4.6 out of 5) and month 12 (4.7-4.9). At month 12, 74% of participants reported nothing interfered with receiving LA injections; injection pain or soreness was the most common concern (15%). Time spent in the clinic and coming to the clinic for monthly injections was very or extremely acceptable after 12 months for most participants (93% and 87%, respectively), with 64% reporting having spent ≤30 minutes in the clinic for injection visits. At month 12, 92% of participants preferred LA injections to daily oral tablets (3%); 97% plan to continue LA treatment going forward. In month 12 interviews, 24 (77%) of 31 participants reported the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact their ability to receive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Once-monthly cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA was highly acceptable among PLHIV who were virologically suppressed on a stable antiretroviral regimen and interested in trying LA therapy, with few participants reporting challenges receiving LA injections. Implementation data from CUSTOMIZE suggest that monthly LA injections provide a convenient and appealing treatment option for PLHIV.

Perspectives of healthcare providers on implementation of long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine in US healthcare settings from a Hybrid III Implementation-effectiveness study (CUSTOMIZE).

INTRODUCTION: CUSTOMIZE evaluated the implementation of long-acting (LA) cabotegravir + rilpivirine, a novel healthcare provider-administered injectable antiretroviral therapy regimen, in diverse US healthcare settings. Findings from staff-study participants (SSPs) through 12 months of implementation are reported. METHODS: CUSTOMIZE was a phase IIIb, 12-month, single-arm, hybrid III implementation-effectiveness study conducted from July 2019 to October 2020 at eight US clinics of five clinic types: private practice (n = 2), federally qualified health centre (n = 2), university (n = 2), AIDS Healthcare Foundation (n = 2) and health maintenance organization (n = 1). Eligible patient participants received monthly cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA injections after a 1-month oral lead-in. At baseline, month 4 and month 12, SSPs (n = 3 each per clinic), including physicians, nurses or injectors, and administrators, completed quantitative surveys and semi-structured interviews to assess implementation outcomes (acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of intervention measures), programme sustainability and SSP perceptions of, attitudes towards, and expectations for cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA. Month 12 data collection occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: In surveys, SSPs reported high mean total scores for acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA implementation at baseline (4.43, 4.52 and 4.38 of 5, respectively) and month 12 (4.45, 4.61 and 4.46 of 5, respectively), regardless of clinic type. At month 12, SSPs were positive about the implementation sustainability (mean Program Sustainability Assessment Tool score, 5.83 out of 7). At baseline, SSPs' top concern was patients' ability to maintain monthly appointments (81%); at month 12, 39% had this concern. The proportion of SSPs reporting patient injection pain or soreness as a barrier was consistent at month 12 versus baseline (48% vs. 46%). Most (78%) SSPs reported optimal implementation of cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA in their clinics was achieved in 1-3 months. In interviews, SSP-reported strategies for successful implementation included teamwork, using a web-based treatment planner and having a designated person to track appointment scheduling. In month 12 interviews, SSP-reported structural changes needed for implementation included changing clinic hours and purchasing refrigerators. CONCLUSIONS: In CUSTOMIZE, cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA was successfully implemented across a range of US healthcare settings. Barriers were mitigated with minor process adjustments.

Qualitative Thematic Analysis of Social Media Data to Assess Perceptions of Route of Administration for Antiretroviral Treatment among People Living with HIV.

BACKGROUND: HIV is a condition that requires lifelong treatment. Treatment options currently consist of oral antiretroviral therapies (ART) taken once or twice daily. Long-acting injectable HIV treatments are currently in development to be administered monthly or every other month. Preferences for route of administration could influence treatment adherence, which could affect treatment outcomes. The purpose of this study was to examine patient perceptions of oral and injectable routes of administration for ART. METHODS: Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted to examine 5122 online discussion threads by people living with HIV (PLHIV) in the POZ Community Forums from January 2013 to June 2018. Analysis focused on identifying perceptions of oral or injectable routes of administration for ART. Relevant threads were extracted and imported into the qualitative data analysis software package ATLAS.ti.8 so that text could be reviewed and coded. RESULTS: Analyses identified 684 relevant discussion threads including 2626 coded quotations from online posts by 568 PLHIV. The oral route of administration was discussed more frequently than injectable (2516 quotations for oral; 110 injectable). Positive statements on the oral route of administration commonly mentioned the small number of pills (276 quotations), dose frequency (245), ease of scheduling (153), and ease of use (146). PLHIV also noted disadvantages of the oral route of administration including negative emotional impact (166), difficulty with medication access (106), scheduling (131), and treatment adherence (121). Among the smaller number of PLHIV discussing injectable ART, common positive comments focused on dose frequency (34), emotional benefits of not taking a daily pill (7), potential benefits for adherence (6), overall convenience (6), and benefits for traveling (6). Some comments from PLHIV perceived the frequency of injections negatively (10), and others had negative perceptions of needles (8) or appointments required to receive injections (7). CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative analysis revealed that route of administration was frequently discussed among PLHIV on this online forum. While many expressed positive views about their daily oral medication regimen, others perceived inconveniences and challenges. Among PLHIV who were aware of a possible monthly injectable treatment, many viewed this new route of administration as a convenient alternative with potential to improve adherence.

Virologic Outcomes Among ART-Naïve Individuals Initiating Dolutegravir, Elvitegravir, Raltegravir or Darunavir: An Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: Dolutegravir (DTG), Elvitegravir (EVG), Raltegravir (RAL) and Darunavir (DRV) are commonly prescribed core agents for antiretroviral therapy (ART), and a need exists to compare their clinical effectiveness, as defined by virologic failure risks in real-world settings. METHODS: This observational analysis of a US clinical cohort consisted of ART-naïve people living with HIV (PLWH) in the OPERA database initiating DTG-, EVG-, RAL- or DRV-based regimens between August 2013 and July 2016, with follow-up to July 2017. PLWH were observed from first core agent initiation until core agent discontinuation, clinical activity cessation, death, or study end. Key outcomes included viral suppression (HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL) and confirmed virologic failure (two consecutive viral loads > 200 copies/mL or a viral load > 200 copies/mL followed by discontinuation). Association between core agent and time to virologic failure was assessed with multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Overall, 4049 ART-naïve PLWH initiated EVG (47.4%), DTG (34.7%), DRV (14.6%), or RAL (3.2%). DTG and EVG initiators had generally similar baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, including race, risk of infection, baseline viral load, and baseline CD4 levels. RAL and DRV initiators were older and generally sicker than DTG initiators. During follow-up, more DTG initiators achieved virologic suppression (78.7%) compared with EVG (73.6%; p < 0.05), RAL (51.9%; p < 0.0001) and DRV (48.6%; p < 0.0001) initiators. Compared to DTG, both RAL and DRV were associated with higher rates of virologic failure, with adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of 4.70 (3.03, 7.30) and 2.38 (1.72, 3.29), respectively. No difference was observed between EVG and DTG with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.24 (0.94, 1.64). CONCLUSION: In this large cohort representative of PLWH in care in the US, ART-naïve PLWH prescribed DTG had better virologic outcomes than RAL and DRV, but had virologic failure risks comparable to EVG, although RAL and DRV were preferentially prescribed to sicker individuals. FUNDING: ViiV Healthcare.

Prospective Validation of the Lupus Impact Tracker: A Patient-Completed Tool for Clinical Practice to Evaluate the Impact of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability, validity, responsiveness, and utility of the Lupus Impact Tracker (LIT). METHODS: This was a prospective longitudinal study with 20 North American sites participating. Consenting patients completed the LIT, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (version 2), Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), LupusQoL, and patient LIT feedback questionnaire. Rheumatologists completed the Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment (SELENA) version of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI), Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index, and physician LIT feedback questionnaire. The reliability, convergent validity, construct validity, and responsiveness of the LIT were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 325 SLE patients enrolled, 90% were female, 53% were white, and 33% were African American. Their mean age was 42 years. The mean ± SD baseline physician's global assessment and total SELENA-SLEDAI scores were 1.04 ± 0.8 and 4.28 ± 3.8, respectively, while 3-month scores were 0.94 ± 0.73 and 4.09 ± 3.79, respectively. Internal consistency reliability was high (>0.9) at both visits. LIT scores correlated highly with other measures of patient-reported outcomes, and construct validity was established against clinical measures. The LIT was highly responsive to patient-reported changes in SLE health status; however, LIT scores were not as responsive to changes in the SELENA-SLEDAI score. The majority of patients and physicians found LIT to be acceptable and feasible to administer in a clinical setting. CONCLUSION: The LIT is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing the impact of SLE on patients and captures unique and important information not included in physician assessments of disease. It may be useful in clinical practice to facilitate communication between the physician and the patient and enable efficient incorporation of the patient's perspective in disease management.

Development and validation of the Lupus Impact Tracker: a patient-completed tool for clinical practice to assess and monitor the impact of systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: To derive and validate a brief patient-completed instrument, the Lupus Impact Tracker (LIT), to assess and monitor the impact of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: Items for the LIT were selected from the LupusPRO, a validated patient-reported outcomes measure, using 3 approaches: confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), stepwise regression, and patient focus groups. CFA was conducted to find items from the LupusPRO that fit a unidimensional structure to allow scoring as a single index. Stepwise regression methods identified items with the strongest relationship (convergent validity) with disease activity measures and patient health rating. Focus groups (n = 26 patients) identified the most important items describing SLE impact. Selected items were evaluated for reliability and validity. RESULTS: CFA found 21 items that fit a unidimensional structure. Stepwise regressions identified 15 of 21 items having good convergent validity with clinical measures. Patient focus groups identified 9 of 15 items as best capturing the impact of SLE. Overall, 7 items were selected across all 3 approaches (CFA, stepwise regression, and focus groups). Another 15 items were selected across 2 approaches. Through consensus with rheumatology clinician experts, a final set of 10 items was selected for the LIT. The LIT items showed good internal consistency (0.89) and test-retest reliabilities (0.87). Mean LIT scores differed significantly (P < 0.05) across criterion groups in the hypothesized direction, providing evidence of discriminant validity and responsiveness. CONCLUSION: The LIT is reliable and valid in SLE patients and offers a practical way for physicians and patients to assess and monitor the impact of SLE.

A comparison of the psychometric properties of the Mini-Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire and the Rhinitis Control Assessment Test.

BACKGROUND: The relationships between validated quality of life tools and control tools have not been explored for rhinitis. This study was designed to determine relationships of the Mini-Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (MiniRQLQ) and the Rhinitis Control Assessment Test (RCAT) to each other regarding content and predictive abilities. METHODS: Participants were adult members of a large integrated care organization with an encounter diagnosis of rhinitis in the prior 2 years. Patients completed mailed questionnaires at baseline that contained the MiniRQLQ and the RCAT and three follow-up questionnaires that contained those tools as well as questions regarding missed work or school because of rhinitis and frequency and effectiveness of medications used for rhinitis. Medications dispensed during the follow-up year were obtained from computerized pharmacy records. Results of allergy tests were retrieved for patients seen in the Allergy Department. RESULTS: The final cohort included 1051 patients. Baseline RCAT scores were strongly correlated with baseline MiniRQLQ scores in both allergic (r = -0.80) and nonallergic (r = -0.84) patients. Baseline MiniRQLQ and RCAT scores were significantly related to patient reports of missed school/work, medication use, and effectiveness over the next 3 months and to dispensing during the following year of total and some individual rhinitis medications. Test-retest reliability, responsiveness, and a preliminary minimal important difference (>2.5) were shown for the RCAT, using the MiniRQLQ as an anchor. CONCLUSION: The MiniRQLQ and RCAT are strongly related to each other and both predict subsequent rhinitis outcomes. Determining the comparative usefulness of these tools will require further study.